• Ann Chir Gynaecol · Jan 1998

    Comparative Study

    Treatment of periprosthetic fractures in association with total hip arthroplasty--a retrospective comparison between revision stem and plate fixation.

    • K Jukkala-Partio, E K Partio, S Solovieva, T Paavilainen, E Hirvensalo, and A Alho.
    • Orton Orthopaedic Hospital, Invalid Foundation, Helsinki, Finland. antti.alho@invalidisaatio.fi
    • Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1998 Jan 1;87(3):229-35.

    Background And AimsIn periprosthetic fracture associated with hip arthroplasty, no consensus exists about the use of plate fixation or revision stem except for cases where the stem is loose in a young patient and a revision is made. The aim of the present retrospective study was to compare two commonly used alternatives for treatment of the fracture--revision arthroplasty and plate fixation.Material And MethodsSeventy-five fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty were treated with revision arthroplasty (N = 40) or compression plate fixation (N = 35). Twenty-one fractures were intraoperative and 54 were postoperative. In revision arthroplasty, cemented (N = 11) and porous-coated (N = 29) stems were sued. Autologous bone grafts were used in 15 revision arthroplasties and 20 plate fixations. The follow-up time was median 20 months (range 12-96 months).ResultsBone grafting at the time of fracture treatment had no significant effect on fracture healing in the present setting. One patient in both groups was operated secondarily because of fracture instability. Five nonunions in the former and 9 nonunions in the latter group were treated by repeated revision and bone graft. In two revision arthroplasties and nine cases with plate fixation, a secondary bone grafting operation was performed for delayed union. In all, 20 secondary operations were needed after prosthesis stem revision and 27 secondary operations after plate fixation (p = 0.014). The need for reoperations was similar in fractures at different levels of the femur. Fracture healing was finally obtained in 39 revision arthroplasties and 34 cases with plate fixation during the follow-up period.ConclusionsCases where the prosthesis stem is stable, where its removal would include great risks and, where the biomechanical conditions are optimal, are best treated with plate fixation. In cases where the stem is loose and where a choice is possible, stem revision is preferable to plate fixation.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…